Thompson asks judge to throw out charges for recording Fall River cop

The post below was first published to BayStateExaminer.com on March 15, 2014 by Andrew and Maya. It’s shared here because the threats levied at George Thompson are ludicrous, and reactionary by Fall River police employee Thomas Barboza, which has only been compounded by those in legaland, including prosecutor Robert Kidd who hasn’t yet dropped the threats, and judge Joseph Macey, who’s thus far refused to dismiss the charges.

___________________________

Thompson asks judge to throw out charges for recording Fall River cop
by Andrew and Maya

George Thompson, who was arrested on January 6 for recording a Fall River police officer with his iPhone, was in court Thursday where his attorney asked a judge to dismiss the charges against him.

Thompson was charged with violating the Massachusetts wiretapping law which prohibits secretly audio-recording conversations. He was also charged with resisting arrest.

Thompson said he began recording Officer Thomas Barboza because he saw the officer, who was supposed to be working at a detail, talking on the phone loudly and swearing profusely on the street outside his apartment. He said his arm was fully extended when he was shooting the video, making it obvious what he was doing. He also said that Barboza called him a “fucking welfare bum” when he approached him.

George Thompson shows our friends at BayStateExaminer.com the porch of his former apartment where he was unjustly arrested by Fall River (MA) police employee Thomas Barboza

In his arrest report, Barboza offered a different account, claiming that Thompson “had a cell phone,as [sic] if just resting, holding it close to his body infront [sic] of his middle chest area.”

The report still makes it clear that Barboza saw Thompson’s phone and that Thompson said that he was recording twice. Despite this, Barboza wrote in his report that Thompson had been secretly recording him.

In the report, Barboza describes a violent arrest in which he “knocked the phone from [Thompson’s] hand and pushed him onto the porch floor.” Barboza said that he resorted to violence because Thompson resisted being handcuffed by “pulling his hands apart.”

The Fall River police have said that two days after Thompson was arrested, his phone was somehow reset while in their custody, deleting all its contents. The police have accused Thompson of resetting the phone remotely using a cloud service. Fall River Police Chief Daniel Racine told WPRI that a warrant was issued to Apple to find out if this allegation is true.

Thompson has denied resetting the video, saying it was most likely a police officer who did it. He said he wanted the video to be made public and has no reason to have delete it. He also said that the phone had no service at the time it was reset, so he couldn’t have remotely accessed it.

Last Monday, Thompson’s attorney Daniel Igo filed a motion to dismiss in an attempt to get Judge Joseph Macey, the judge who is hearing the case, to throw out the charges.

According to the Igo’s motion, “the allegations contained in the Fall River police report do not describe a secret recording but are more properly viewed as an exercise in free speech.”

Igo cited the case Commonwealth v. Hyde, in which the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a recording could not be considered secret if the recording device was “held… in plain sight.”

Igo compared Thompson’s arrest to the recent case Glik v. Cunniffe, in which a federal appeals court ruled that a Massachusetts man could move forward with a lawsuit against three Boston police officers who arrested him for recording them with a cell phone.

Igo said the facts of Thompson’s case were “strikingly similar” to those in Glik:

It is alleged that Thompson like Glik used his cell phone to tape officer’s actions while the officer was on duty. Both cases occurred while the officers were in public. In both cases, the police acknowledged the cell phone’s presence. In both cases, the officers were told that they were being recorded.

Igo also wrote the resisting arrest charge should be dismissed because Thompson was not accused of violently resisting and because the arrest was not made in “good faith.”

Assistant District Attorney Robert Kidd, who is prosecuting Thompson, said during Thursday’s court hearing that he wanted more time to review the motion.

Thompson remains optimistic

History suggests that he will beat the charges. According to The Herald News, at least five other people have been charged with wiretapping for recording police in Greater Fall River since 2008. Of the four cases that have been resolved so far, three were dismissed. The only person to have been convicted took a plea bargain.

In addition to winning his criminal case, Thompson said he is pursuing several avenues to hold the Fall River police accountable for what happened.

Thompson has already filed a complaint against Barboza. The Fall River police chief sustained the complaint and punished Barboza, although Thompson was unhappy with the punishment. Barboza was given with a one day suspension and prohibited from detail work for 15 days for talking on the phone and using inappropriate language.

“They slapped him on the hand,” Thompson said. “That’s a slap not only to myself, that’s a slap in the face to everybody. A five-year-old kid would get more severe punishment.”

Thompson said that once he beats the charges against him, he plans to make sure the police department holds whoever is responsible for deleting his video accountable.

“I’d like to see the dirty Fall River cop that erased my video – cop or cops – somebody is gonna get fired in Fall River,” he said. “If something as minute as that video of a police officer goofing off can be tampered with and destroyed, what other evidence has been tampered with or destroyed while sitting in the Fall River police station?”

It remains to be seen if the police will get to the bottom of who reset the phone, but Police Chief Daniel Racine told WPRI that he would take action against whoever was responsible.”If a Fall River police officer erased that video, he’s fired and I would suspect the district attorney would take out charges. If any other individual did that, we will take out felony charges,” he said.

Thompson said that more people should exercise their rights and try to hold police accountable for misconduct.

“Too many peoples’ rights get violated and people sit back and say ‘Look, it’s only me. I can’t do anything about it,’” he said. “With the internet and the technology going on now, you can be one person and you can shake people up.”

Note: The video of Thompson’s court hearing was provided to us by Tim White of WPRI. Court rules only allow one video camera to record court proceedings at a time, however, the video must be shared with any other news media present. Tim White got the video back to us very quickly and we are very appreciative.

He broke the wiretapping laws of that state. Isn’t that what Ademo did? The article leaves out a lot of information again but that is what you expect from copblock. WE will just have to wait and see what a jury says.

Glenn McBride

I am interested to see how the prosecution pursues this case. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) is quite clear on this matter, so perhaps the state will attempt to poke some holes in Glik. Also, but unlikely, the judge may be attempting to let this case run its course as a means to silence future claims of this nature in the future.

Ghost

Hey dickhead. I’ll take video of you or anyone I want in public. Know why? Because it’s legal in all states. Your a fucking idiotic moron. How’s things in Keene today? Suck t off yet? Fucking moron.

RadicalDude

Should be interesting to see how this plays out. 1.Will the prosecutor engage in malicious barratry and proprietorial/prosecutorial misconduct by bringing predatory bullshit charges against the victim to cover for the crimes of his colleague while acting under color of law and hiding behind the legal fiction of “prosecutorial immunity”: that he is not culpable for crimes he commits in his capacity as prosecutor because he is representing a legal fiction, or corporate fiction called “the state”? 2.If there were no such thing as prosecutorial immunity, would this lawyer still charge this victim in court? 3. Does prosecutorial immunity thus serve to enable, encourage and facilitate criminality? 4. And if so, is that its intended purpose as deliberately designed by a protected criminal class, or merely an unintended consequence(when it happens)?

John Q Public

Considering the Glik decision was from the First Circuit, I’d say Thompson has a valid case. With Thompson being on his own property and the officer out on a public sidewalk, it seems pretty cut and dried. From reading Glik, it seems the issue is where Thompson was holding the phone. If Thompson was holding it secretly, then how did the officer see it? I guess a court will have to decide.

keepitreal

Ademo’s case dealt with being on the phone, you fucking douche-pickle. Post the address, slaps. Or everybody here might think you’re some kind of lying troll, slaps.

ray brown

I’m curious. Was the phone remotely wiped-if that is a fact-while the phone was in custody if the Fall River Police? Isn’t it their responsibility to secure the phone immediately in a manner that would preclude remote wiping? And how could it be wiped without a valid SIM card? And what idiot would entertain the idea that you need an officer’s consent or even knowledge to exercise your First Amendment right to make one party consent audio recordings of police on the street or in a building for that matter. Using the state’s logic it would have been a crime for someone not within view to make an audio recording. That’s one reason why Glik prevailed- the lack of Mass state law to use the reasonable expectation of privacy standard. The state is in a quandary because most likely the officer deleted the video. It’s a catch22 for them. If they charge him the deletion becomes an issue, if they don’t the deletion is still an issue.

steve

Yes he will try his hardest if the judge lets him. They have already destroyed evidence.

steve

I don’t reply to J.C. anymore . It’s just the same old shit over and over.

Jake C My Pee Pee

Jake the fake.

RaymondbyEllis

Yep. If I can see it it isn’t secret. If I’m in the First Circuit, I should be aware and ignorance of the law is just an excuse.

RaymondbyEllis

Jake,
Look to JQP’s comment a few threads below. Commonwealth v Glik was lost by the Commonwealth in 2008 and Glik won in Glik v Cunniffe in August,2011. This is settled law in the First. Thompson had the “right” in January, 2014.

How long does it take a cop, a prosecutor, and a judge to catch up to the law? However long it takes for it to mean something to them…For the rest of us, one second after the law changed.

Yankeefan

No Jake, he did not! Ademo made a phone call and taped it! This guy recorded a Jackboot badge thug in public where his every word was open to the public! These cases ALWAYS get tossed or overturned on appeal if the person is even convicted, which they are almost never. Since filming public employees is an established right!

Do you also read you moron? Do you understand the wiretap law? For someone who claims to be in law enforcement, you sure are a blathering moron. The law requires an expectation of privacy and also requires the recording to have been done in secret. Also we have this Glik ruling thingy! Stop trolling copblock, Slappy, Adam Miller, Jason Free and Jason Free123 and any other pseudonyms you use and act like a normal human being. Although, I liked you better when you exhibited low intelligence with your foul mouthed rants while telling everyone you were going to “F” their 2 dollar whore of a mother!

Common Sense

Seems the only shirt he owns is by Copblock. That’s brand loyalty for ya.

Jake C

Another childish rant by a copblocker. It doesn’t surprise me that you act like others on this forum. Why dont’ you prove to everyone I am “slappy” Hard concrete evidence that says I am “slappy”. I have never seen a signle post he/she has posted on this site.

You said, “Although, I liked you better when you exhibited low intelligence” You can’t prove I’m “slappy” but you obviously believe I have high intelligence. Thank you.

You said, “These cases ALWAYS get tossed or overturned on appeal if the person is even convicted, which they are almost never”.

This rant has no meaning. You say they always get tossed or over turned but then you say almost never. Which is it? Prove your statements. There are some prisoners in Cal. that are there for wire tapping convictions.

THose are just two of many. Yes, some cases have been over turned. It would appear the case in this article may not be. We will just have to see.

Again, everything you wrote is just a rant. I wouldn’t expect anything else by an immature childish copblocker such as yourself.

Yankeefan

Whatever, Slappy. Filming police in public isn’t wiretapping and 2 federal courts have spoken on this topic. Go do some research before you speak. The 1st US Circuit in Glik spoke on filming of police in relation to the wiretapping law and so did the 7th US Circuit in relation to the Illinois wiretapping law.

So far, the only person that I have found that as convicted for filming a police officer, was convicted by Judge Beth Dixon and that conviction was removed from her record and she received 25k for her troubles.The act of charging someone with wiretapping for filming a police officer will never survive on appeal. What a state court judge does is one thing but on this particular topic, the courts seem to understand that wiretap laws were not meant to be used to stop 1st amendment activities.

Also try and stick to topic and stop trolling. Pelicano was wiretapping, not filming a public servant.

t

Looks like someone thought he was big and bad. Enjoy the felony conviction courtesy of the state. I hope he learns his lesson.

The key word is yet. If he recorded an officer without permission he deserves everything he gets and I really hope he gets the maximum.
Glick can suck my dick.

Ghost

You have no idea about the law your writing about. Don’t you mean lick your pussy? Fucking moron.

Jake C

You are correct. Filming the police is not illegal. But, if film the way Thompson did, it is illegal. I already posted a coupld of people who were convicted with wiretapping. I looked at New Hampshire’s wire tapping laws because Ademo was convicted of three felony counts of wiretapping. Yes it was over turned but the state feels the evidence is still over whelming so they are going to retry him again. Like I said before, we will just have to wait to see what the judge says.

Jake C

I hear so much about the Glik decision. I do not believe it is a tell all of wiretapping. There are direct wiretapping felonies such as Ademos and there are others where wiretapping was used to commit a crime. Not everyone with a camera are following the rules. There still are rules such as in New Hampshire, you must tell who you are recording you are recording. THat is what happened with Ademo. He didn’t tell those people he was recording them and then posted it on youtube.

t

Does it hurt that I am always right every time?

Ghost

Your rarely right. No one needs permission to film a cop. Especially one standing on a sidewalk . Your logic that Glick means nothing speaks volumes about your knowledge of the law. I may be vulgar on here but I’ll tell you something lady, I have a better understanding of law and right from wrong than you ever will. Trolling the trolls aside, I have integrity and merit in my community. You sit at a computer fighting a loosing battle. And trying to convince Americans there rights can lick your pussy. There’s no valour in that little Missy. Fucking moron.

This wasn’t in New Hampshire. It was in Mass. Read the wiretap law! It requires the filming to be done in secret and based on the report the officer states he knew he was being recorded, so wiretapping doesn’t apply. Holding a phone in plain view isn’t secretive! Once again filming public servants isn’t a crime and wiretapping laws were meant to protect private conversations. Go spend time reading what the 7th stated in striking down the Illinois wiretap law which made it a bona-fide crime to record police sans permission!

t

Don’t you copblockers ever get tired of me proving you wrong time after time? I know you don’t like cops, guy. That’s fine. But we have to do our job and put partiot wack jobs in jail. That’s just the way it is sorry you don’t like about it cry about it on copblock and see if anyone who matters ever cares.

Ghost

You saying I don’t like cops doesn’t make it true asshole. You need to work on those reading comprehension skills little miss. If you think your one that matters your wrong about that too. Real cops wouldn’t spout off about patriots. I must have missed it when patriot became a foul title. I think of our servicemen and women, honest LEOs and firefighters as patriots. What do you see in the title? Enemy?

Jake C

Again, Ademo was tried and convicted in New Hampshire.
Again your immature rants mean nothing. Thompson is being accused of breaking wiretapping laws. I said we will have to wait and see what comes of it because it could go either way. You have taken on this ridiculous childish personality that seems to be typical of some of the copblockers here. I suggest you re-read my posts completely.

Yankeefan

Again, Troll, this isn’t in New Hampshire as your posts, which I have read, suggests! This is in Massachusetts which has a wiretapping law that requires the recording to have been done in secret and you must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was covered by the 1st in the Glik ruling!

Stop trolling, Slappy, and pull your head out of your ass and try and follow along!

Yankeefan

That’s because he tapped phone calls. The Glik case is about wiretapping as that is what Glik was charged with, for recording police in the Boston Commons engaged in an arrest!

Again your childish rants don’t mean anything. I know this case is in Massachusetts. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and try following along. Dumb ass

Jake C

We will have to see what comes from the trial

t

Activists only care about their own rights. This one disobeyed the officer and questioned his authority. An arrest was necessary. Sorry you don’t like it but if you keep whining about it maybe someone will care. If you don’t want to do what we order you to, your rights don’t count because we have to defend everybody’s rights not just yourds

Jake C

At lease you admit you are troll. Don’t forget to add liar and coward to that mix.

Yankeefan

Then stop mentioning New Hampshire you waste of life! Troll away but be smart about it. You fool no one Slappy!

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

Drunken fat men sit on your face so you can rim their anus and massage their little “douche-pickles” at the same time with your fingers. WOMP!

keepitreal

Post the address, slaps. Otherwise you’re full of shit.

keepitreal

“The Fort Dix Five appealed their convictions, primarily arguing that the use of wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.”

That’s from your first piece of “proof”. Case had nothing to do at all with recording cops, it had to do with cops recording people. You stupid lying douchebag.

keepitreal

Like you were right about the cop in Florida? With the black lady? LOL. Yep, you were dead on with that one. Moron.

keepitreal

Hey, leave me out of your fantasies. I’m not into sick shit like you. Few are. That’s why it’s generally referred to as sick shit.

Freaking weirdo stalker.

FEEuser

As I always say, welcome to the police state. I am so sick of these kinds of cases. Police do NOT have the right to an expectation of privacy when working in public. The man informed the officer that he was being recorded.

What about surveillance cameras? It’s ok for the police to record us without our consent, but it’s not ok for us to record them without their consent? I thought life was a two-way street! Pursuing the logic of the charges, this citizen should have been charged for a crime merely for LOOKING AT the cop on the street.

What we need are personal surveillance cameras for use in public which cannot be detected by cops. They might take any form, a button on your shirt, a pen, a wrist watch, a mail box, a window pane, etc.
You cops cannot POSSIBLY win this battle. The people are going to triumph in the end. Witnesses to your misdeeds must have their day in court. They will find ways to expose your crimes and hold you responsible. Technology is a double-edged sword.
LITTLE BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

FEEuser

What “lesson” is that? That the “State” is God?
That we live in a POLICE STATE is now a fact of life, as you unintentionally acknowledge.
Isn’t that nice? We should ALL have the privilege of living in a police state, where arbitrary rule holds, and the police can do any damn thing they want. Don’t you agree?
Woe be unto any brazen citizen who crosses the line and records a master of the universe at work in the streets of our fair cities! What an outrage! How presumptuous of him to think that he has the “right” to sit in judgment on a police officer, let alone to record his actions for review later! The very idea!
What is this country coming to? It’s filled with nothing but worthless eaters, dishonorable turds who don’t merit the breath of life, civies who don’t deserve to live! Damn them and their cell phone cameras!
Is this a fair representation of your thinking?

Jake C

Why? It would seem that copblockers who live by the Glick decision and in New Hampshire, don’t seem to no the law very good.

You’re on here often trolling? Wow, that’s very sad. Does anyone like you in real life?

Janella

We all have every right to film, he wasn’t doing it concealed in his pocket. Go ahead and defend the video being deleted why don’t you.

Janella

Do you know what wiretapping is? He told the cop more than once he was recording him while holding his phone it, it wasn’t concealed.

Janella

LOL!!

Janella

*know

Janella

Childish rants…you sound like a broken record.

Janella

For Pete’s sake, Thompson told the cop at least twice he was recording him!

Yankeefan

They do not have to inform the cop in public in New Hampshire they are recording them!

keepitreal

Yep. And anybody else who reads your unceasing and trollish attacks on anybody who posts an opinion you don’t like. Shows a huge inferiority complex, the way you are constantly driven to try and bring others down to your level. But for anybody who possesses more than your rather less than mediocre level of intelligence, it’s pretty transparent. So, yes, your gig is weak. You have no kung-fu. My kung-fu is strong. Kind of like your smell.

Jake C

Thank you

Jake C

Again, It was his story. The officer’s story is different. There is no video so neither side can prove their story. He accuses the officers of deleting the video and the police accuse him of deleting the video. We will have to wait and see what happens in the trial.

There is no video to collaberate both sides of the story. The police accuse Thompson of deleting his recording and Thompson accuses the police of deleting his recording. It’s a he says she says scenario. We will have to wait and see what happens in court.

Yankeefan

Except the Glik ruling stated that the right to film the public servants was established 10 yrs prior to the Glik ruling and this officer stated in his report he knew he was being recorded. Not a big mystery here, Slappy!

keepitreal

You’re a liar, slaps. Nobody listens. Because you claim to have info that you don’t have. Which make you a liar. And then you tell others to prove stuff. That’s the hypocrite part. And you’re a douchebag.

keepitreal

LOL. It’s your story, you tell it.

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

lol

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

Looks who’s talking? OMG! Your comments need fumigation.

Janella

The cop said himself in his report that Thompson told him twice that he was recording him and his actions, he was holding his phone out, not hidden; he was never secretly recorded. And you think what about the recording magically disappearing? C’mon. This is my first time on this site, I love police officers….the good ones. Unfortunately there are many that aren’t and their behavior shouldn’t be defended.

RaymondbyEllis

YF,
Even “tapping” the phone call raises an issue. The original meaning was a third-party not involved in the conversation and not known to the other parties. Some States have managed to turn that into recording an open conversation by a party involved.
I’m damn glad, as crazy as my state can be, that it’s a one-party state.

Yankeefan

RE,

My overall point is that wiretapping laws were not meant to be used in the fashion police are using them. When discussing the Graber case with Common Sense, I pointed this out with a PDF file from the AG of the state of Maine? in which he flat out stated the wiretapping laws were not meant to be utilized in the manner in which police are using them.

The 7th US Circuit ruled Illinois wiretapping law unconstitutional and referenced the Glik case out of the 1st. The Baltimore PD not only received guidelines from the DOJ,but they crafted their own policy stating that citizens have the right to film police in public. That isn’t good when PD in American has to craft a policy stating we have 1st amendment rights and to respect those right.

JokeySlackin

Jokey,
In your supposed line of work I would think you would not make the mistake of using collaborate instead of corroborate unless it was a Freudian slip about what coppers do as a normal course of business like destroying evidence but hey, we will have to wait and see because we all know it will be just.
At the risk of being a grammar nazi. And you mean, to corroborate EITHER story, I’m betting.

JokeyAintSerious

Apple, meet orange. Next

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

You’re such a Tool. lol

RaymondbyEllis

And the conviction was thrown out and he was remanded to trial again. We should wait for the second trial, while understanding why the NHCS threw it out and remanded.

RaymondbyEllis

And I agree they weren’t. But our government and it’s employees have a way of using something in a way never intended.

Yankeefan

I do agree, Raymond! If it were left up to cops, we would not be allowed to film them at all. The most interesting part of the Glik ruling was the first question the 1st had to answer and that was, ” Does the 1st amendment protect the rights of citizens to film public employees” and the 3 idiot cops, who filed their appeal with the 1st, didn’t believe so and remember they were initially supported by the Boston PD. Pretty shocking when cops can’t exercise common sense on something like this!

keepitreal

Your comments need fumigation………

Is that really the best you’ve got? Like I said, WEAK.

keepitreal

See ya later, trolligator!

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

Go toss some more salads.

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

Give that fat man a hummer after ya toss that salad.

keepitreal

And you’re an orifice. Probably accommodating whichever tool that can supply the biggest crack rock.

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

Go douche your mote, Lord Analingus.

keepitreal

Stop with the obscure and (I’m assuming) perverted sexual references. I’m pretty vanilla in such matters, and I don’t have the benefit of your many years experience. So your insults are wasted, as I’m not really sure what you mean.

keepitreal

You followed me here from another web site, trollish stalker. So by all means, stop replying.

Please, stop stalking me. It’s getting weird now. Seriously. Go ask the doctor if he has any extra stool samples and buy a box of saltines to spread it on. You’re annoying. WOMP!

Jake C

Prove the film was deleted by the police officer. It’s Thompson’s word over the police officer’s word.

Jake C

Again this is a he said she said scenario. It will have to be up to a judge or jury to decide.

Jake C

You are correct. His lawyer used the oldest ploy on the books to get the conviction thrown out. But, if this conviction were all wrong ect.. Why would the state go through another trial. Why woudl Ademo want to put himself into such jeopoady of another conviction that could be even worse. He already has two drug felonies. What’s 3 more

Jake C

I spelled a word wrong. Can you ever forgive me? You are making assumptions about my job. Something you obviously do not understand.

keepitreal

Once again, you’re projecting. You’re the one following me around from site to site. That’s pretty much the definition of a stalker, right there. And your fixation on all things fecal is waaaayyyyyyyy creepy, so you’re partially correct, in that one of us drastically needs the services of a mental health professional. And I think there is medication to handle that Tourette’s outburst at the end of a lot of your posts. You might not think much of it, but it is probably indicative of far more serious issues which should be addressed before you wind up hurting yourself or others. Well, considering, hurting others, anyway.

Jake C

You better watch out, he will start talking about his fetish with farm animals and pornos.

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

Ok, Mr. Facial-Protuberance. Go pop your blackheads, beotch.

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

I sure hope not. He/she stalks me all over the web with all sorts of sick shit. Watch out for him. He refuses to go away.

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

Other people here are sick of you too. WOMP!

keepitreal

You’ve grown tiresome and disappointingly weak. I’ll respond again when you come up with something worthy. Which being the weak troll you are, will never happen.

I mean, blackheads? Really?

Barbara Moss & Mocking Giggles

I am with NASA and checking the results of my latest experiment. Hold on…

Jake C

What other names does he go by on the internet? He is not who he claims to be. I assure you of that.

Jake C

Why don’t you tell me Lee? You live in Keene with the rest of the copblockers at Ian Bernard’s house.

Yankeefan

No it isn’t!

Yankeefan

No it isn’t!

Scott Imyourrealdad Nagelberg

Typical government cronies!

Chuck

I don’t think barb is the brightest star in the sky. God bless her.

Chuck

Just comply!

George Thompson

Not the only shirt I have, The ONLY shirt I wear PROUDLY!

George Thompson

How the fuck can you say the way I filmed was illegal? It was in public, in PLAIN VIEW! Stay in NH we’ve got enough stupid people living in Mass.

ray brown

Hey Dumbo-Mr Thompson has a First Amendment right to make one party consent Audio recordings. The officers in Glik were also following state law-where did it get them. You may record with or without officers’ consent and/or knowledge. Mr Thompson can’t be responsible if the state legislature wants to continue ignoring USC 2511(2)(d).

ray brown

How did Mr Thompson film? Did you see the video? He could have used the $6000000 man’s bionic eyes and ears to record. It would have been legal under Glik and a dozen other court rulings. Don’t knock Cop Block for pointing out your’s and the Fall River PD’s self imposed ignorance.

ray brown

Ademo’s conviction was overturned. In trying him the state chose to ignore Glik. The Higher court properly chastised them. Only a dummy would ignore Federal law for state law. Which law do you think Federal court is gong to follow? Use your your head for something besides a target for bird sh___.

ray brown

Now, now children. Uncle Sam doesn’t like his nephews ignoring his laws. You ignore Federal law at your peril.